Honig Says GOP Proposals for Education Funds Are Too Costly

State Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig said Wednesday that Republicans have a “legitimate” complaint that state spending formulas are cheating many rural and suburban school districts out of their fair share of money for special programs.

But the Democratic state school chief said Republican proposals for solving the problem would be too costly and take away funds that should be used for other education reforms.

Honig said the Republicans want to solve the problem by setting aside most of the schools’ share of a state revenue windfall for the suburban districts, leaving nothing for other education needs.

“They’ve raised a legitimate issue. Their solution we have some problems with,” he said.

Honig made his comments as Republicans continued to hold up passage of a proposed $49.5-billion state budget in the Assembly until they get commitments from the Democrats that their concerns about the distribution of education funds will be addressed.

“We need agreement now before the budget moves on,” Assemblyman Pat Nolan (R-Glendale) said Wednesday. “This is something we’ve been saying for years. This is not a new issue--just finally the figures are so outrageously out of balance that the Democrats have got to face it.”

While Republicans and Democrats are still not close to reaching agreement on a plan to solve the inequities, he said Democrats are finally “taking our position seriously.”

The Republicans complain that money for a variety of special programs including those providing instruction for children with limited English ability, for gifted and talented students and for the handicapped, is funneled primarily to large urban school districts. They contend that suburban and rural schools are left with an unequal share even though those districts are saddled with many of the same problems as the intercity districts.

Honig conceded that the inequities have become acute in recent years because spending formulas were not updated to account for the tremendous growth in student populations in suburban school districts. He said the formulas were devised “four and five years ago” when most of the problems associated with educating poor children who have a limited proficiency in English were centered in the urban school districts.

At the same time, he said a shortage of funds forced the state to put a funding cap on many of the programs before they had been extended to suburban school districts.

Republicans, on the other hand, are charging that urban school districts, particularly in San Jose and Los Angeles, were able to gobble up a disproportionate share of the money for special programs because they were represented by Democrats who held leadership positions in the Legislature.

“Unfortunately, the districts of many of the people in their (the Democratic) leadership have benefited under the present system. . . ,” Nolan said.

To equalize the distribution of funds Nolan has proposed a plan which would give more money to school districts that now are receiving less per pupil for special programs than the state average.

Democrats, however, have complained that the Republican plan would reward wealthy school districts and penalize poorer districts.

In a preliminary draft of a news release which is expected to be distributed today, Democrats accuse the Republicans of distorting the facts.

“Though alluring in its simplicity, the (Republican) proposal is poorly crafted, would reward districts who have general revenues well above average and would punish school districts with high transportation and other costs or a large number of students with special needs,” the Democrats said.

In a related development, legislative leaders emerged from another negotiating session with Gov. George Deukmejian and, for the first time, suggested that they may not be able to fashion a major overhaul of state government financing by a rapidly approaching June 30 deadline.

“We’re on a teeter-totter,” said Senate leader David A. Roberti (D-Los Angeles).

Legislators and the governor have been trying to put together a mammoth plan to spend the unexpected tax windfall on a variety of state programs that Deukmejian has proposed for cuts. But in order to do that, they have to agree by June 30 on major changes in Proposition 98 and the state spending limit. If they don’t, the lion’s share of the windfall will go to schools, as dictated by Proposition 98.

Preparing for the possibility they cannot reach such an agreement, the legislative leaders said they will draft a contingency state budget that spends most of the windfall on schools and results in cuts for health and welfare programs.